EASTERN MACHINERY TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is in respect of an order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, permitting the Assistant Enforcement Officer. Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Bombay, to retain in his possession certain documents which were seized as the result of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 19 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. It appears that the Assistant Enforcement Officer made an application on the 23rd of June 1962, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the issue of a search warrant under Section 19 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (herein after referred to as the Act ). The search warrant was" directed to be issued on the same day, and it is common ground that it was in fact executed on the 25th June 1962. Certain documents were seized from the Eastern Machinery and Trading Company, who are the present petitioners. Applications were made for retaining the documents with the Enforcement Officer even after the expiry of the period of four months prescribed in Section 19-A of the Act. The four months' period expired on the 24th of October 1962. We are not concerned as to whether or not any applications were made for the extension of this four months' period prior to the 19th of February 1963, on which date admittedly an application was made to the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for permitting the Assistant Enforcement Officer to retain custody of the documents which were seized in the search. The learned Chief Magistrate made an order on the 28th of February 1963, granting further time up to the 2nd of August 1963 and thus enabling the Assistant Enforcement Officer retain the documents with him. It is this order made by the learned Chief Magistrate on the 28th February 1963, that is challenged in this revision application.

(2.) MR. Kalal, who appears for the petitioners, contends that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant extension of time so as to permit the Assistant Enforcement Officer to retain custody of the documents as the period of four months had admittedly expired on the 24th of October 1962. He says that since the four months' period prescribed under Section 19-A of the Act has expired, it was obligatory on the Enforcement Officer to return these documents to the petitioners, from whose possession they were seized as a result of the search warrant issued by the learned Magistrate in support of this argument, he relies on the provisions of Sections 19 and 19-A of the Act.

(3.) IN order to appreciate this argument it will be necessary to reproduce, to the extent relevant for the purposes of this argument, the provisions of Sections 19 and 19-A of the Act. Sub-section (3) of the Section 19 is relevant. It provides as follows:--